DCC and Logic (part 2)
nt
2. It shows VCs do exist.
3. I call Viet Son a serious VC-asskisser
4. Therefore, it proves me to be a DCC :)
Tu+' Ddo.an Lua^.n cho te^n bu+ng bo^ vo^ danh tie^?u to^'t,
Viet...@lickthemasses.com
n.t. :)
Anonymous
Last week, I presented a short proof which demonstrated
the use of Condition Deduction rule (modus ponens). Today
I would like to show you another simple yet powerful proof
technique called "Proof by Contradiction." To prove A is true
we assume A is false, and then go on to show that our
assumption will lead to a contradiction.
Example
Given:
(1) If DCC are all powerful, they are able to prevent VC.
(2) If DCC are able to prevent VC, then VC don't even exist.
(3) If DCC exist, they are all powerful.
(4) VC do exist.
Show
DCC do not exist.
Solution:
For the sake of this discussion we assume DCC Do exist. We will
show that this assumption leads a contradiction.
- Since DCC Do exist, we conclude DCC are all powerful. (line 3 - modus ponens)
- Since DCC are all powerful, we conclude DCC are able to prevent VC. (line 1 - modus ponens)
- Since DCC are able to prevent VC, we conclude
VC don't even exist. (line 2 - modus ponens) This result, however, contradicts
the fact that VC do exist. (line 4)
Therefore, DCC do not exist. QED.
Note: DCC - Da^n Cho^'ng Co^.ng
Get your FREE Email at http://mailcity.lycos.com
Get your PERSONALIZED START PAGE at http://personal.lycos.com
Lechithao
If DCC does not exist, who in the hell keeps calling HoChiMinh bloody murderer
and the whole VC guys in Hanoi illiterate and greedy gangsters?
Le Chi Thao
http://members.aol.com/lechithao
LoneKnigh1
keep their identity secret.
-Anonymous keeps his identity secret.
-Therefore Anonymous is a raper ?
Nah I don't think so, he's only a coward.
hbui.v...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net
Whoever you are Anonymous, you just leave DCC speechless!
Vulgar and empty-head DCC the kind of ngu.y to^'i (nt) and shamviet are
grasping for air. They are breathless!
They find nothing to respond to such intelligent posting, only obscenities
viet...@my-dejanews.com
lech...@aol.com (Lechithao) wrote:
> How about htis for proof by contradiction?
>
> If DCC does not exist, who in the hell keeps calling HoChiMinh bloody murderer
> and the whole VC guys in Hanoi illiterate and greedy gangsters?
It's OK... anh Thao,
The VCs always hope that DCC never exist but they know
for sure that 78 million of Vietnamese have called HCM
the "bloody mass murderer" and the VCP members the
"illiterate and greedy gangsters".
>
> Le Chi Thao
> http://members.aol.com/lechithao
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
nt
Hbui and his newly appointed Viet Cong's asskissing friend,
Viet...@lickthemasses.com still don't get it!
The reason for the obscenity is you. Get it, you dumb ass?
As for what to do for fun on the Net, you're looking at it! Heheheh!!!
n.t. :)
_ I've been having a blast making fun of VCs, VCs' asslicker and...their
family! Heheheh!!!
nt
co' dduo+.c ddi ho.c kho^ng...Nhu+ng khi chu'ng bi. mi?a mai cho ca'i
thu+' "tu+' ddoa.n lua^.n" chu+a bao gio+` dduo+.c ti`m tha^'y trong
sa'ch vo+? na`o, te^n Hbui la.i co`n kho^ng hie^?u ma` la.i co`n ha(ng
ma'u the^m... tuo+?ng la` te^n ba.n lie^'m bo^ co' nhie^`u lo^ gi'ch
la('m! Ddu'ng la` dumb and dumber!
Listen up you two idiots, this is how it works (previously shown by ba'c
LoneKight1):
1. Viet_Son is a dumb ass.
2. Hbui acts like Viet_Son,
3. So, Hbui is a dumb ass!
That's it! There is no step #4, okay? :)
n.t. :)
Anonymous
Your proof is, however, INVALID. I don't have the
time to get really formal. Look at this
counter-example and figure it out yourself.
- All prime numbers > 0
- 10 > 0
Therefore 10 is a prime number?
If you don't like math, here is a more concrete counter-example:
- All bad guys (including VC) participate in soc.culture.vietnamese
- DCC also participate in soc.culture.vietnamese
=> Therefore DCC is VC???
good try mr. loneknigh1.
viet son
PS: my email is included in every post. All other facts such
as my ISP, IP address are irrelevant. Hope that doesn't bother
you.
sans will
nt wrote:
1. VietSon's proof lead to the conclusion that there's no DCC.
2. h.bui is admitting that there are DCC (i.e. nt).
One of the following logical deductions must be true.:
1. VietSon has a serrious flaw in his/her line of logical reasoning (i.e
he's a non-intelligent being) and that DCC do exist.
2. DCC do not exist and h.bui is a non-intelligent being.
3. Both VietSon and h.bui are non-intelligent beings.
Exersise: prove that if statement number 3 is true then a lot of people are
having a good laugh.
sans will
Given two well formed properties P and Q so that we can also construct
Neg.P and Neg.Q.
Given that P implies Q is a true statement then which one of the
following statements is always true:
1. Q implies P.
2. Neg.P implies Neg.Q.
3. Neg.Q implies Neg.P.
You can rank idiot by the choice of his/her answer. i.e. if he/she
chooses #1 then he/she is an idiot of first class.
Example.
Given that "VC are stupid" is true . Which one of the following
statements is true?
1. You are stupid then you are a VC.
2. You are not VC then you are not stupid.
2. You are not stupid then you are not VC.
My friend, a regular poster on this forum, speculates that there's a
premier class of idiots.
i.e. people who believe that whatever the statement if they repeat it
twice it becomes true.
sans will
sans will wrote:
> A lesson in classical logic:
>
> Given two well formed properties P and Q so that we can also construct
> Neg.P and Neg.Q.
>
> Given that P implies Q is a true statement then which one of the
> following statements is always true:
>
> 1. Q implies P.
> 2. Neg.P implies Neg.Q.
> 3. Neg.Q implies Neg.P.
>
> You can rank idiot by the choice of his/her answer. i.e. if he/she
> chooses #1 then he/she is an idiot of first class.
>
> Example.
>
> Given that "VC are stupid" is true . Which one of the following
> statements is true?
>
> 1. You are stupid then you are a VC.
> 2. You are not VC then you are not stupid.
> 2. You are not stupid then you are not VC.
>
> My friend, a regular poster on this forum, speculates that there's a
> premier class of idiots.
> i.e. people who believe that whatever the statement if they repeat it
> twice it becomes true.
>
Let's continue with this fundamental logic lesson. Recap that given that
if P implies Q is a true statement then the following statement (the
third statement) is always true:
"Neg.Q implies Neg.P."
A normal person with an average intelligence would recognise this fact.
Let's do some more exercises shall we?
Let P = Being a VC
Let Q= Being vulgar.
Let the true statement be: If a person is a VC then that person is
vulgar. (ne^'u la` VC thi` la` ngu+o+`i tho^ bi? (tu.c ti?u etc)).
Now the statement that is always true from the above is:
If a person is not vulgar then that person is NOT VC. (Kho^ng tho^ bi?
thi` kho^ng pha?i VC.).
Therefore if you are saying that VC are vulgar and you would like to show
that you have absolutely nothing to do with them them you should not
behave vulgarly.
i.e. If given that "VC are vulgar" is true then extreme anti-VC (i.e.DCC)
is someone who does not behave vulgarly.
Ne^'u VC la` ngu+o+` tu.c ti?u thi` nhu+~ng ngu+o+`i cho^'ng co^.ng
nha^'t la` nhu+~ng ngu+o+`i kho^ng vie^'t tu.c ti?u.
(Co`n nhu+~ng ngu+o+`i a(n no'i hay vie^'t u.c ti?u la` nhu+~ng nhu+~ng
ngu+o+`i lo+` mo+` ddu+'ng giu+~a kho^ng dda'ng tin la` ngu+o+`i tha^.t
su+. cho^'ng co^.ng.)
If a person is saying that "VC are vulgar" and at the same time behaves
vulgarly then either he has a less-than-average brain (first or second
class idiot) or that he's not really anti-VC.
That's logic!!!
Co`n ca'i dda'm "ngo^'c ngoa.i ha.ng" co' ma^'y ba`i ma` post ddi post
la.i va` xa~ ra'c thi` kho?i pha?i ba`n.
Maverick
hassles of replay.com to show off his formal logics basics was cool. It is not,
'cause his reality bites. The "guy" is just a sophomore who did his homework in
the wrong place, at the wrong time.
Sat, 10 Apr 1999 02:07:22 GMT
You are falling into your own trap, chap. Before you could use your
>so-called deduction, you must define cleary what are "powerful" and "exist"
>in this case. Only when all the parties agree with the definition, then you
>could proceed with your deduction.
>
> It seems you and el chino come from same background.
>
>In article <1999040701...@mail.replay.com>,
johnd...@my-dejanews.com
so-called deduction, you must define cleary what are "powerful" and "exist"
in this case. Only when all the parties agree with the definition, then you
could proceed with your deduction.
It seems you and el chino come from same background.
In article <1999040701...@mail.replay.com>,
Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
> Proof by Contradiction
>
> Last week, I presented a short proof which demonstrated
> ---
> viet...@mailcity.com
>
> Get your FREE Email at http://mailcity.lycos.com
> Get your PERSONALIZED START PAGE at http://personal.lycos.com
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Sans Will
ltran...@yahoo.com wrote:
> In article <370BF006...@will32100.freeserve.co.uk>,
> sans will <sa...@will32100.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > A lesson in classical logic:
> >
> > Given two well formed properties P and Q so that we can also construct
> > Neg.P and Neg.Q.
>
> Answer:
>
> 1) [ P => Q ] -- hypothesis
>
> 2) ~ [ P => Q ] -- Neg.
>
> 3) P and ~ Q -- P and not Q --Logic Rule ?
>
> "My friend, a regular poster on this forum, speculates that there's a
> premier class of idiots.
> i.e. people who believe that whatever the statement if they repeat it
> twice it becomes true."
>
> This relates to their personal beliefs and memory (psychology).
>
> Cheer up :-)
>
Thanks ltran,
I'm enjoying myself with some of the very best laugh of my life. :-))
:-))
BTW, dimen_sion is on a parents visiting trip (in Korea). He's sending his
wishes to you, he'll be back quite soon. Let's wish that he shan't send
messages in Korean.
>
> > Anonymous wrote:
> >
> > > Geez... you guys pick up the material amazingly fast.
> > > Your proof is, however, INVALID. I don't have the
> > > time to get really formal. Look at this
> > > counter-example and figure it out yourself.
> > >
> > > - All prime numbers > 0
> > > - 10 > 0
> > > Therefore 10 is a prime number?
> > >
> > > If you don't like math, here is a more concrete counter-example:
> > >
> > > - All bad guys (including VC) participate in soc.culture.vietnamese
> > > - DCC also participate in soc.culture.vietnamese
> > > => Therefore DCC is VC???
> > >
> > > good try mr. loneknigh1.
> > >
> > > viet son
> > >
> > > PS: my email is included in every post. All other facts such
> > > as my ISP, IP address are irrelevant. Hope that doesn't bother
> > > you.
> > >
nt
"Smart, I like, smart-ass, I don't"... as an old saying stated...
In any event, there seems to be many of you smart folks (besides
Dimension) around on SCV (including you mate, from UK)...
Here's a good one for you:
How would you INTEGRATE sinxlnx?
If you already knew the answer without working at it, please only email
me privately so we can test the rest of the sharp guys (and gals) :)
n.t. :)
nt
And you might have found out by now... Integration by parts doesn't work
for this particular problem! (It's a run-around!)
So, don't try so hard with that approach, okay? :)
<<<....Thanks for your comments :)
Question: How would you INTEGRATE sinxlnx?
Answer:
Hints: CosIntegral[x]or Ci[x] is a nonelementary integral!
--
Please type this command with Mathematica:
1) Integrate[Log[x]*Sin[x],x]
--
Note: This is not a solution. Mathematica deserves all the credits.
<<<...If you already knew the answer without working at it, please only
email me privately so we can test the rest of the sharp guys (and gals)
:)
n.t....>>>
Sans Will
ltran...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Thanks for your comments :)
>
> Question: How would you INTEGRATE sinxlnx?
>
> Answer:
>
> Hints: CosIntegral[x]or Ci[x] is a nonelementary integral!
> --
>
> Please type this command with Mathematica:
>
> 1) Integrate[Log[x]*Sin[x],x]
>
> --
If you don't have mathematica, you can check out the site:
http://www.integrals.com
>
>
> Note: This is not a solution. Mathematica deserves all the credits.
>
> > If you already knew the answer without working at it, please only email
> > me privately so we can test the rest of the sharp guys (and gals) :)
> >
> > n.t. :)
Sans Will
> Dear Sans,
>
> I hope my answer is correct. My Vietnamese-American High School math teacher
> used to say, "Sau khi em ho.c Logic xong thi` se~ bie^'t tre^n ddo*`i na`y
> ngu*o*`i ta no'i ba^.y ra^'t la` nhie^`u la('m! " It's a bother for you to
> read comments that are nonsense, isn't it?
>
>
>
> Thanks for the good news. Life has been very complicated for me very
> lately... Please send my best regards to Dimen_sion:-)
>
> Take care and best wishes always,
> L.Tran
> --
Dear Ltran,
Don't worry if you got the answer right or wrong. It was my tongue-in-cheek
approach to permitted deductions from a hypothesis statement. There's a lack of
logically rigour statements in this newsgroup so at first I thought viet_son was
a clever person who would like to set up a formal approach to the style of logic
some people are using here. i.e. The Alice in Wonderland Logic. But he gave
himself away in his latter posts thus my semi-formal approach to classical logic.
The statement:
"Given two well formed properties P and Q so that we can also construct Neg.P and
Neg.Q."
Informs the readers that this is a two values logic system i.e. only "true" or
"false" are allowed. Given a set P there's a distinctive set Neg.P (ussually
Not.P or ~P in your notation).
I do sincerely hope that you have sorted out the recent complications of your
life
SW
P.S. For skeptical readers,
The hypothesis is P==>Q.
Three possible deductions:
1. Q ==> P
2. ~P ==> ~Q
3.~Q ==> ~P
And asked which one is always true.
ex. One such system:
"The sun is on the sky"
1. It is on the sky then it is the sun.
2. It is not the sun then it is not on the sky.
3. It is not on the sky then it is not the sun.
Similarly "VC are bad"
If the person choose the true logical deduction is: if you are not VC then you
are not bad
Then it is the reason why some people who would go at length to show he's not VC
by swearing at anything connect with VC, (according to their logic Q==>P) to
prove that he/she is not bad.
There's a group who claim that "VC are vulgar" and they are claiming that they
are the true DCC (tha`nh pha^`n thu+' nha^'t, hay thu+' hai gi` ddo') and the
"tha`nh pha^`n thu+' ba" are the less extreme. However, according to normal
logical deduction the extremist DCC are the "tha`nh pha^`n thu+' ba" ( whoever
they are, I have no idea) i.e. the people who do not behave vugarly.
>
> In article <3711237F...@will32100.freeserve.co.uk>,
johnd...@my-dejanews.com
if A=B and B=C, then A=C.
Language, speaking and writing, is art which is full of ambiguity.
When mixing logic with language as many netters attempted to do, then these
so called logic transposition is no longer precise as in the sense of its
meaning in pure science. For example, if A loves B and B loves C, then it
does not mean A must love C unless A is father, B is mother and C is
children. It may go to the contrary if love is for man/woman love.
So does it mean when one says some thing which does not go with the
conventional of logic, one says "ba^.y ba."? May or may not!
In article <37172921...@will32100.freeserve.co.uk>,
Sans Will
johnd...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Logic is from science and science is dealing with precision. For example,
> if A=B and B=C, then A=C.
>
> Language, speaking and writing, is art which is full of ambiguity.
>
> When mixing logic with language as many netters attempted to do, then these
> so called logic transposition is no longer precise as in the sense of its
> meaning in pure science. For example, if A loves B and B loves C, then it
> does not mean A must love C unless A is father, B is mother and C is
> children. It may go to the contrary if love is for man/woman love.
>
> So does it mean when one says some thing which does not go with the
> conventional of logic, one says "ba^.y ba."? May or may not!
The ambiguity is yours when you decided to chose "=" instead of "==>". The "=" sign
or "equal" conveives a reciprocal relationship between two quantities A&B.
If you say "Jack loves Jill", in normal everyday experience it doesnot mean Jill
loves Jack.
This fundamental logic lesson dealt with deductable information if given a
hypothetical relationship with two quantities (or two sets in abstract sense).
For example with the above hypothesis, the logical structure you can get from that
is:
"If Jack, THEN loves Jill".
There are three possible logical deductions:
1. If he loves Jill THEN he's Jack.
2. If he is not Jack THEN he does not love Jill.
3. If he does not love Jill THEN he's not Jack.
In normal every day life conversation, let's say you are going to a party you meet
three men.
1. Men A says: "That woman Jill is so beautiful, I'm so in love with her".
This information would not tell you that whether A is Jack or not. Since Jill might
have many admirers for example. A fool is the one who would then say "you are in
love with Jill you must be Jack".
2. Men B says: "Hi my name is Bill".
This information would not tell you whether B (who is not Jack) is in love with Jill
or not. A fool would say: "he's not Jack so he's not in love with Jill."
3. Men C says: " That woman Jill is a dumb headed, I don't like her".
This would tell you C (who is not in love with Jill) is CERTAINLY NOT Jack.
(otherwise your hypothesis is wrong).
Sans Will
A little philosophical thought on a sunday afternoon.
There is no logical structure of language, the ambiguity lies on the meaning of
words. A word represents the entity but not THE entity itself. "tree" is not a tree,
you can call it "ca^y" or whatever but the conceptual meaning of treeness stays the
same. We might chose different names for the same concept but the concept stays the
same.
How do we decide upon the word to represent "treeness" (or the "concept of a tree")
so that we can put into our language to spread our understanding of the world? This
is where the idea of "general consensus" come in as many netters have pointed out in
the past. We need to decide on what "tree" means (perhaps we do not need to do so in
daytoday experience since we have got use to the word "tree" ) we need consensus on
what are the rules that govern different concepts by everyone (or an assemply of
representatives) nomination on the possible choices. i.e. the laws must be chosen as
in collective and free way. (In the context of SCV's main debate, words like
"Goverment" or "laws" should not be chosen by a few and imposed upon the rest by
force.)
***The "ba^.y ba." that I see is when I see people expecting me to believe in an
infomation that is based on faulty logic. Is it the same for you?***
ltran...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Dear JohnDoe3825,
>
> My math teacher was just reflecting his personal opinion about Mathematical
> Logic, and since it was just a quote! (not a law), it's up to your personal
> belief on whether it's true or not.
>
> Of course, the meaning of the Vietnamese language can be very ambiguous (as
> you said). Therefore, I try to respect people's freedom of speech to say
> whatever they want to say on SCV as long as they do not interfere with my
> personal right. I do know that we are different in many ways!
>
> (Note: I'm still learning....)
>
> Bye nhe', to^i kho^ng co' nhie^`u tho*`i gian no'i chuye^.n "ta^`m pha`o"
> nu*~a dda^u!
>
> In article <7f9460$964$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
johnd...@my-dejanews.com
johnd...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Dear JohnDoe3825,
>
> My math teacher was just reflecting his personal opinion about Mathematical
> Logic, and since it was just a quote! (not a law), it's up to your personal
> belief on whether it's true or not.
>
> Of course, the meaning of the Vietnamese language can be very ambiguous (as
> you said). Therefore, I try to respect people's freedom of speech to say
> whatever they want to say on SCV as long as they do not interfere with my
> personal right. I do know that we are different in many ways!
>
> (Note: I'm still learning....)
>
> Bye nhe', to^i kho^ng co' nhie^`u tho*`i gian no'i chuye^.n "ta^`m pha`o"
> nu*~a dda^u!
>
I am surprised that you got so offended. I only said it might or might not
when going from precision to ambiguity when applying science into the art
domain. I always consider debating is learning as you wrote above "I'm still
learning ...." so I would never write it as "ta^`m pha`o".
Sans Will, I read your article but will not answer it as discussion went
out of hand.
I was completely surprised!
> In article <7f9460$964$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> johnd...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
dimen...@my-dejanews.com
I hope you are not trying to axiomise anti-communism. You have pointed out a
very power result of logic i.e [P==>Q]<==>[~Q==>~P]. This imporatant law is
often overlooked in most arguements. I know you are trying to be constructive
however at this point I think it worths to consider a famous quote by William
of Occam "Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity"(Entia non sunt
multiplicanda praeter necessitatem). In plain English, this means that the
reasons behind an argument should never be multiplied beyond strict
necessity.
Please consider the following statements:
1. I swear at people I hate.
2. I hate VCs (or DCC).
3. Therefore I swear at VCs (or DCC).
Can you see the problem here? each of the statements might be true. The
conclusion is true generally however it fails to address why I swear at the
VCs at any particular time. I might have been forced my a madman who is
pointing a gun at me for example.
In article <371A0604...@will32100.freeserve.co.uk>,
bao...@my-dejanews.com
ltran...@yahoo.com wrote:
> In article <7ff4hf$1pr$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, > I am surprised that you got
> so offended. I only said it might or might not
>
> > when going from precision to ambiguity when applying science into the art
> > domain. I always consider debating is learning as you wrote above "I'm
still
> > learning ...." so I would never write it as "ta^`m pha`o".
>
> that I have to do right now. In other words, my real life activities are
> more important to me than talking about Logic in SCV!
>
> > Sans Will, I read your article but will not answer it as discussion went
> > out of hand.
>
> very important law of logic: A loves B does not means B loves A.
>
> 1) [A => B] "DOES NOT IMPLIES" [ B => A]
>
> > I was completely surprised!
>
> Yes! I was a little bit mad....He is a very well respected teacher and it was
> just his personal quote that I tried to share with Sans. I, too did not know
> that you would take it more personlly than I was expected.
>
> Sorry, I don't have time to discuss this topic with you any further :-)
No hard feelings ... Life is too short.
Baogao